United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee
on National Security, Emerging Threats
and International Relations, Committee
on Government Reform, House of
Representatives
May 2005
TASER WEAPONS
Use of Tasers by
Selected Law
Enforcement Agencies
GAO-05-464
a
What GAO Recommends
May 2005
TASER WEAPONS
Accountability Integrity Reliability
Highlights
Highlights of GAO-05-464, a report to
the Chairman, Subcommittee on National
Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations, Committee on
Government Reform, House of
Representatives
Use of Tasers by Selected Law
Enforcement Agencies
Why GAO Did This Study
What GAO Found
Emerging domestic and
international threats have
generated a growing interest in the
use of less-than-lethal weapons by
government and law enforcement
agencies and other entities such as
commercial airlines. One such
weapon—the Taser—is a hand-held
weapon that delivers an electric
shock via two stainless steel barbs,
effectively incapacitating an
individual. According to the
manufacturer—Taser International,
Incorporated (Taser
International)—Tasers are
currently used by over 7,000 of the
18,000 law enforcement agencies in
the United States, with more than
140,000 Tasers in use by police
officers in the field and an
additional 100,000 Tasers owned by
civilians worldwide. Tasers have
been used on over 100,000
volunteers, including individuals
involved in training seminars and
research experiments, and involved
in over 70,000 actual field uses
during police encounters.
The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established
use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational protocols, and
safety procedures to help ensure the proper use of Tasers. Although none of
the agencies have separate use-of-force policies that specifically address
Tasers, all seven agencies include the use of Tasers into their existing
policies. Taser training is required for officers who use the weapons, and
agency officials said that training for officers and other non-law enforcement
persons who are allowed to use Tasers is critically important to help ensure
their safe use. Operational protocols require that Tasers be visually
inspected daily, appropriately safeguarded, and, in some cases, tested
weekly or at the beginning of an officer’s shift. Safety procedures require
that Tasers not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near bystanders
or flammable liquids and that individuals hit in specific body areas with
Taser barbs, such as the neck or face, be examined by a physician.
In light of the expanding interest in
the Taser, GAO was asked to
provide information on (1) the
policies and procedures related to
the issues of “use-of-force,”
training, operations, and safety for
selected law enforcement agencies
that have purchased and used
Tasers and (2) federal, state, and
local laws that specifically address
Tasers, including the
Transportation Security
Administration’s (TSA) authority to
regulate Tasers on aircraft.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-464.
Some federal, state, and local jurisdictions have laws that address Tasers but
requirements differ. For example, at the federal level, the Army prohibits
Tasers from being brought into selected military installations in Georgia.
Also, TSA may approve the use of Tasers on aircraft but must prescribe
training rules and guidance on appropriate circumstances for using Tasers.
At the state and local levels, the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago,
Illinois, regulate the sale or possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement
persons by subjecting Tasers to the same restrictions that apply to firearms.
Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into
public facilities such as airports.
GAO observes that as the Taser becomes more widely used, especially by
non-law enforcement persons, training is critical to help ensure its safe,
effective, and appropriate use. TSA, Taser International, and the seven law
enforcement agencies we contacted generally agreed with the information in
this report.
Two Examples of Taser Models
M-26 Model Taser
X-26 Model Taser
Source: GAO; Prince George's County, MD, Sheriff's Office; Prince George's County, MD, Police Department.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert J.
Cramer at (202) 512-7455 or
cramerr@gao.gov.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
1
3
4
Results in Brief
Background
Selected Law Enforcement Agencies Have Established Policies and
Procedures to Help Ensure Proper Taser Use
Some Federal, State, and Local Laws Address Tasers But
Requirements Differ
Concluding Observations
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
17
20
20
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
22
Comments from the Secretary, Transportation Security
Administration
24
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
25
7
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II:
Appendix III:
Tables
Figures
Table 1: Information Related to Tasers in Use-of-Force Policies for
Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Table 2: Training Requirements in Seven Law Enforcement
Agencies
Table 3: Operational Protocols in Seven Law Enforcement
Agencies
Table 4: Safety Procedures in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Figure 1: Taser (M-26 Model)
Figure 2: Taser (X-26 Model)
Figure 3: FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum
Page i
10
11
14
16
5
6
8
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Contents
Abbreviations
ATF
ATSA
DOJ
EMT
FLETC
GAO
NIJ
TSA
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Aviation and Transportation Security Act
Department of Justice
Emergency medical technician
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Government Accountability Office
National Institute of Justice
Transportation Security Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
Page ii
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
A
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
May 26, 2005
Leter
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats and International Relations
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Emerging domestic and international threats have generated a growing
interest in the use of less-than-lethal weapons1 by government and law
enforcement agencies and other entities such as commercial airlines.
One such weapon—the Taser—is a hand-held weapon that delivers an
electric shock via two stainless steel barbs, effectively incapacitating an
individual.2 According to the manufacturer—Taser International,
Incorporated (Taser International)—Tasers are currently used by over
7,000 of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, with
more than 140,000 Tasers in use by police officers in the field and an
additional 100,000 Tasers owned by civilians world-wide. Taser
International officials told us that Tasers have been used on over
100,000 volunteers, including individuals involved in training seminars and
research experiments. They also told us that Tasers have been involved in
over 70,000 actual field uses during police encounters. In addition to law
enforcement agencies, other entities have requested that they be permitted
to use Tasers. For example, in October 2004, the Department of Homeland
Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved Korean
Airlines’ request that specially trained cabin attendants be allowed to use
1
According to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice—the agency
within DOJ responsible for researching issues related to crime and law enforcement—lessthan-lethal weapons are designed to temporarily incapacitate or restrain an individual when
lethal force is not appropriate. These weapons and devices include, among others, pepper
spray, stun guns, batons, and nights sticks.
2
According to Taser International, Taser is a trademark and an acronym for the
Thomas A. Swift Electrical Rifle, which was first developed in the 1970s. For the purposes
of this report, the term Taser will refer to a weapon that shoots two stainless steel barbs up
to a distance of 25 feet and results in an incapacitating 50,000 volt electric shock.
Page 1
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Tasers onboard passenger flights. TSA is the federal agency that is
responsible for establishing guidelines that govern the circumstances in
which Tasers may be used on aircraft.3
In light of this expanding interest in the Taser, you asked us to obtain
information on (1) the policies and procedures related to the issues of “use
of force,”4 training, operations, and safety for selected law enforcement
agencies that have purchased and used Tasers; and (2) federal, state, and
local laws that specifically address Tasers, including TSA’s authority to
regulate Tasers onboard aircraft.
To accomplish the first objective, we reviewed Taser-related policies and
procedures established by the seven state and local law enforcement
agencies that have purchased and used the largest number of Tasers for the
longest period of time. We also interviewed law enforcement officials in the
seven agencies. The agencies were the Austin, Texas, Police Department;
the Ohio Highway Patrol; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department;
the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; the Sacramento, California,
Police Department; the Sacramento, California, Sheriff’s Department; and
the San Jose, California, Police Department. To accomplish the second
objective, we examined various federal, state, and local laws, including
statutes, regulations, and ordinances, to determine whether they
specifically address Tasers. We also reviewed the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA)5 to obtain information on TSA’s
authority concerning Tasers, including its authority to regulate Tasers
onboard aircraft. A more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology is included in appendix I. We conducted our work from May
2004 through February 2005 in accordance with quality standards for
investigations as set forth by the President’s Council on Integrity and
Efficiency.
3
GAO will report separately on TSA’s efforts to approve and oversee the use of Tasers
onboard commercial aircraft. Among other things, we will report on the type of analysis the
federal government conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of Tasers, what criteria
TSA used to determine whether to approve Tasers on aircraft, and whether TSA has
established a training program for flight crews.
4
For purposes of this report, use of force refers primarily to a policy established by a law
enforcement agency that provides police officers with a clearly defined set of rules or
guidance to follow when encountering a subject based on the subject’s actions, the officer’s
perception of the situation, and the available types of officer responses.
5
Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.).
Page 2
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Results in Brief
The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established
use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational protocols, and
safety procedures to help ensure the proper use of Tasers. All of the seven
agencies had included the use of Tasers into their existing use-of-force
policies so that police officers would have guidance on the circumstances
in which the use of Tasers may be appropriate. Officials in all seven law
enforcement agencies told us that Taser training is required for officers
who use the weapons and that training—especially for non-law
enforcement individuals who may be authorized to use Tasers—is of
critical importance to help ensure the safe use of these weapons. For the
seven agencies, operational protocols, which provide guidance on police
officers’ daily law enforcement activities, require that Tasers be visually
inspected on a daily basis, be appropriately safeguarded, and, in some
cases, be tested on a weekly basis or at the beginning of an officer’s shift.
Safety procedures established by all seven agencies require that the Taser
not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near bystanders or
flammable liquids and that individuals hit in specific body areas with Taser
barbs, such as the neck or face, be examined by an emergency room
physician.
Some federal, state, and local jurisdictions have laws that address Tasers
but requirements concerning such weapons differ. In some instances, the
extent to which the Taser is regulated may depend on whether it is
classified as a firearm. For example, at the federal level, the Department of
Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has
not classified the Taser as a firearm, which exempts the weapon from
federal firearms requirements. However, the Department of the Army
(Army) has established Taser-related regulations governing the possession,
use, and sale of Tasers on specific military installations. In addition, TSA
has identified the Taser as a prohibited weapon that cannot be brought past
airport security checkpoints by unauthorized personnel. TSA also has
authority to approve the use of Tasers by flight crews onboard commercial
aircraft and must prescribe rules for training flight crews in the proper use
of Tasers and provide guidance on the circumstances under which such
weapons may be used. In addition, some state and local jurisdictions, such
as the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago, Illinois, regulate the sale or
possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons within their state or
municipal boundaries by subjecting Tasers to their firearms restrictions.
Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into
public facilities such as schools and airports.
Page 3
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Based on our work, we observe that as the Taser becomes more widely
available for use, especially by non-law enforcement persons, training is
critical to help ensure its safe, effective, and appropriate use.
In commenting on a draft of this report, TSA, Taser International, and the
seven law enforcement agencies generally agreed with the information in
the report. Also, TSA as well as the Department of Homeland Security’s
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC),6 Taser International,
and three of the seven law enforcement agencies provided technical
comments that were incorporated into the report where appropriate.
Background
Although a number of companies manufacture various non-lethal weapons,
such as stun guns, the only company that manufactures Tasers is Taser
International in Scottsdale, Arizona. First developed in the 1970s for use by
police departments, Tasers differ from stun guns in that they can be fired
from a distance and do not require contact with skin in order to work.7
Taser International has produced various models of Taser weapons
including Air Tasers8 and the M-18, M-18L, M-26, X-26, and X-26C models.
The M-18 and X-26C models are available to the civilian market. The M-26
and X-26 models are sold only to law enforcement agencies, the military,
and more recently have been made available for use in maintaining aviation
security. Both models, while varying in size, operate in the same manner
and deliver approximately the same electrical charge. For the purposes of
this report, Tasers refer to the M-26 and X-26 models. Figure 1 shows a
picture of an M-26 model Taser, and figure 2 shows a picture of an X-26
model Taser.
6
FLETC, with headquarters in Glynco, Georgia, is an interagency law enforcement training
organization for federal law enforcement personnel. It also provides training services to
state, local, and international law enforcement agencies. FLETC’s mission is to prepare law
enforcement professionals to fulfill their responsibilities safely and proficiently, while
ensuring that training is accomplished in the most cost-effective manner.
7
Tasers can be also used in “touch stun” mode by pressing the electrical barbs directly onto
a person’s skin.
8
According to Taser International, production of the Air Taser has been discontinued.
Page 4
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Figure 1: Taser (M-26 Model)
Source: GAO; Prince George's County, Maryland, Police Department.
Page 5
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Figure 2: Taser (X-26 Model)
Source: GAO; Prince George's County, Maryland, Sheriff's Office.
The Taser fires two metal barbs that are attached to wires, which can cover
a distance of up to 25 feet.9 Once the barbs are embedded in an individual
or on the individual’s clothing, the weapon delivers an electrical charge of
50,000 volts through the wires to the barbs. This charge causes the muscles
of the individual to involuntarily contract, which immediately incapacitates
the individual for the duration of the shock, usually lasting about 5 seconds.
The barbs need not be embedded in an individual’s body in order to
function. Because of the high voltage, an individual will be shocked even if
the barbs are attached to an outer layer of clothing, such as a coat. If the
barbs penetrate the skin, it is impossible to predict how deeply they will
embed because of various factors, including wind speed and a subject’s
weight and muscle mass. The manufacturer estimated that the barbs will
9
In commenting on a draft of this report, an official from Taser International told us that his
company is developing a new cartridge that will fire up to 35 feet and will be sold only to law
enforcement agencies.
Page 6
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
generally penetrate bare skin no more than half an inch. Once the Taser
weapon’s shock subsides, the individual can recover completely in about 10
seconds. If the weapon is fired correctly and the barbs hit the individual, no
collateral damage occurs to the surrounding environment.
The Taser can be reactivated numerous times as long as the barbs remain in
the individual or the individual’s clothing. Secondary electric shocks also
last for about 5 seconds. The operator has the ability to shut the weapon
off, thus ending the charge. A data port contained in the latest models of
Tasers provides information suitable for downloading onto a computer
detailing the date, time, and duration of each instance that the Taser was
fired. A visual battery level indicator is located on the back of the hand
guard. The Taser also utilizes a laser sight system. This system enables the
operator, even with limited experience, to direct the barbs to the desired
location on the individual.
Selected Law
Enforcement Agencies
Have Established
Policies and
Procedures to Help
Ensure Proper Taser
Use
The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have attempted to
ensure proper deployment of the Taser weapon by establishing and
employing use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational
protocols, and safety procedures.
Use-of-Force Policies
Although none of the seven agencies had separate use-of-force policies that
specifically addressed Tasers, all of the agencies included the use of such
weapons into their existing policies so that police officers would have
guidance on the circumstances in which the use of Tasers may be
appropriate. A use-of-force policy provides police officers with a clearly
defined set of rules or guidance to follow when encountering a subject,
based on the subject’s actions, the officer’s perception of the situation,
and the available types of officer responses. The use-of-force model—
frequently referred to by law enforcement officials as the use-of-force
continuum—was developed using federal law enforcement training
guidelines established by FLETC. According to FLETC, the continuum
serves as a visual tool to help explain about the application of the use-offorce policy. Specifically, the continuum establishes for a police officer
Page 7
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
various options to use in responding to a subject’s actions, while employing
the minimum amount of force necessary under the circumstances.
Generally, an officer should employ more forceful means to control a
subject only if the officer determines that a lower level of force is
inadequate. Officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted
told us that they rely on the continuum to help provide officers with
guidance in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.
As shown in figure 3, the use-of-force continuum includes five levels of
potential subject actions and corresponding officer responses. For
example, if a subject is compliant, an officer should use only “cooperative
controls,” such as verbal commands, to control the subject. On the other
hand, the guidelines provide that if a subject is assaultive and an officer
perceives a threat of serious physical injury or death—a lethal situation on
the use-of-force continuum—the officer may use deadly force to control
the subject.
Figure 3: FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum
Assaultive
(Serious physical
injury/death)
Assaultive
(physical
injury)
r as
ses
sme
n
t
Tactical
Compliance
techniques
tion
elec
Offi
ce
Volatile
er s
Resistant
(passive)
Defensive
tactics
Harmful
Offic
Resistant
(active)
Deadly
force
Lethal
Contact
controls
Strategic
Cooperative
controls
Compliant
Officer perception
Subject action
Officer response
Source: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Department of Homeland Security.
Page 8
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted stated that
each agency has a use-of-force policy in which all officers are trained. Each
of the seven agencies has incorporated the Taser into its existing use-offorce policy.
The placement of the Taser on the use-of-force continuums of the agencies
varied.10 Specifically, we found that the seven agencies placed the Taser at
three different levels on their use-of-force continuums. As shown in table 1,
two agencies—the Sacramento Police Department and the Sacramento
Sheriff’s Department—permit the use of Tasers when a police officer
perceives the situation as potentially harmful, as when a subject engages in
assaultive behavior that creates a risk of physical injury to another. Impact
weapons, such as night sticks and batons, can also be used in these
situations. They include, for example, instances in which a subject attacks
or threatens to attack an officer by fighting and kicking.
Four other police departments—the Austin Police Department, the Ohio
Highway Patrol, the Phoenix Police Department, and the San Jose Police
Department—allow the use of Tasers at a lower level in the use-of-force
continuum in situations that the officer perceives as volatile.11 This occurs,
for example, when a subject is actively resisting arrest but not attacking the
officer. The use of chemical sprays12 to subdue the subject is another
option in such a situation. Finally, one agency—the Orange County Sheriff’s
Department—allows the use of Tasers in situations that an officer
perceives as tactical, such as when a subject is “passively resisting” by not
responding to the lawful, verbal commands of the officer.
10
In their comments on a draft of this report, FLETC officials stated that they believe that to
avoid the inconsistency among law enforcement agencies as to where Taser use is placed in
the use-of-force continuum, a standardized training program on the use of Tasers is needed.
Also, they stated that greater research into safety and deployment guidelines should be
conducted by entities not associated with the manufacturer.
11
In commenting on a draft of this report, an official from the Austin Police Department
explained that according to departmental policy, the Taser may be used to control a
dangerous or violent subject when (1) deadly force does not appear to be justified or
necessary, (2) attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been or are
likely to be ineffective in the situation at hand, or (3) there is a reasonable expectation that
it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject.
12
Typically, chemical sprays are divided into two groups: chlorobrnzylidene malononitrile
(tear gas) and oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray).
Page 9
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Table 1: Information Related to Tasers in Use-of-Force Policies for Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Agency
Separate policy on
Taser use?
Taser use incorporated into
existing policy?
Austin Police
No
Yes
Chemical spray/pepper spray and impact
weapons
Ohio Highway Patrol
No
Yes
Chemical spray/mace
Orange County Sheriff
No
Yes
Verbal commands
Phoenix Police
No
Yes
Chemical spray/
mace
Sacramento Police
No
Yes
Impact weapons
Sacramento Sheriff
No
Yes
Impact weapons
San Jose Police
No
Yes
Chemical spray/mace
Other options
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.
Training Requirements
Officials in all seven law enforcement agencies told us that adequate Taser
training is critically important in helping to ensure the safe, effective, and
appropriate use of Tasers not only by law enforcement officials but also by
other non-law enforcement individuals who may be permitted to use
Tasers. The officials in these agencies agreed that it is essential to provide
such training prior to issuing Tasers to police officers and to other users.
They also told us that training only works when weapons are standardized;
that is, when weapons are constructed and manufactured in the same way.
For example, an official in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department said
that
“…it is of paramount importance that officers expect and receive the same results from one
Taser to another. Their confidence in the weapon is based on the knowledge that all Tasers
will operate the same each and every time and will achieve the same desired results each
and every time.”
In all seven agencies, the training cycle begins by disseminating the
previously discussed use-of-force policy. Police officers also receive
mandatory firearms training. As shown in table 2, three of the agencies we
contacted—the Sacramento Police Department, the Sacramento Sheriff’s
Department, and the San Jose Police Department—require a minimum of
100 hours of such training; three agencies—the Ohio Highway Patrol, the
Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and the Phoenix Police Department—
require a minimum of 80 hours; and one agency—the Austin Police
Department—requires a minimum of 60 hours. In addition, all seven
agencies require Taser-specific training. This training stresses such matters
Page 10
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
as how to (1) properly handle the weapon, (2) locate the shot,
(3) safeguard the Taser, (4) conduct proper function tests, (5) overcome
system malfunctions in a timely fashion, and (6) perform post-Taser
deployment actions. Three agencies require 8 hours of Taser training, while
three require 5 hours and one requires 4 hours. All seven agencies require
officers to demonstrate physical competency with the weapon, and three
agencies also require written tests generally consisting of approximately 10
true or false questions related to the application of the use-of-force policy,
proper use of the weapon, and appropriate safety measures.
Furthermore, six of the seven agencies required yearly recertification in the
use of Tasers. One agency—the San Jose Police Department—does not
require yearly recertification for Tasers and is not currently considering the
establishment of such recertification. However, an official from the San
Jose Police Department told us that the department includes Tasers in its
annual use-of-force simulations training in which officers are trained in the
use of Tasers that would be considered appropriate in various law
enforcement scenarios.
Table 2: Training Requirements in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Agency
Firearms minimum
training hours
Taser-training
provider
Taser training
hours
Evaluation
criteria
Recertification
Austin Police
60
Taser
International and
agency
8
Physical and written Yearly
test
Ohio Highway Patrol
80
Agency
5
Physical and written Yearly
test
Orange County Sheriff
80
Taser
International and
agency
5
Physical test
Phoenix Police
80
Taser
International and
agency
5
Physical and written Yearly
test
Sacramento Police
100
Taser
International and
agency
8
Physical test
Yearly
Sacramento Sheriff
100
Taser
International and
agency
8
Physical test
Yearly
Page 11
Yearly
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
(Continued From Previous Page)
Agency
Firearms minimum
training hours
San Jose Police
100
Taser-training
provider
Taser
International and
agency
Taser training
hours
4
Evaluation
criteria
Physical test
Recertification
No yearly
recertification
required. (Taser
training is included in
annual use-of-force
simulations training.)
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.
We also discussed with officials from the seven agencies how training other
Taser users may differ from training law enforcement personnel in Taser
use. All the officials agreed that the length and intensity of training must be
increased for users who have no law enforcement experience or firearms
training. The officials also stressed that any civilian training curriculum
should have a very explicit use-of-force policy. Unlike police officers,
civilians are not generally experienced in deciding whether the use of force
is justified and, if so, to what extent. Therefore, the officials told us that it
should be the goal of any civilian training curriculum to remove the need
for independent decision-making as much as possible. Officials from all
seven agencies agreed that training for non-traditional law enforcement
individuals should involve as many “real life” scenarios as possible so that
the trainee understands what level of force is appropriate.
Operational Protocols
The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have operational
protocols, which are written policies and procedures that address and
provide guidance on the daily activities of a law enforcement agency’s
officers. These protocols address a wide range of issues such as
deployment of law enforcement personnel and weapons, inspection
techniques, proper use of weapons, and post-incident procedures.
Regarding Tasers, the protocols in the seven agencies require, among other
things, that Tasers be visually inspected on a daily basis, be appropriately
safeguarded, and, in some cases, be tested on a weekly basis or at the
beginning of an officer’s shift.
With regard to Taser deployment, three of the seven agencies we contacted
issued the Taser to all of their officers. Three of the agencies deployed
Tasers only to patrol officers because they were considered to be the most
likely personnel to have use for the device during the course of their work.
The remaining agency issued Tasers to its patrol officers and members of
some specialized police units such as narcotics.
Page 12
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Regarding inspections, all seven agencies we contacted required a daily
function test for Tasers. Officials in the seven agencies told us that this test
generally consists of visually inspecting the weapon for any signs of
damage or unusual wear and tear, inspecting the firing cartridge to ensure
that there is no damage or obvious tampering, and checking the battery
strength indicator located on the rear of the weapon. Furthermore, one of
the seven agencies required that on a weekly basis, officers conduct a test
fire of Tasers in which the officer initiates an arcing of the electric probes
by pulling the trigger of a Taser that does not contain a firing cartridge. In
addition, two of the seven agencies require that each officer conduct such a
test at the beginning of the officer’s shift. All of the agencies mandated that
the Taser be safeguarded in the same fashion as a firearm issued by the
agency.
Once the law enforcement agency’s internal policies and procedures were
satisfied, including compliance with the use-of-force policy, the method
and manner prescribed for Taser use did not significantly differ among the
agencies we contacted. Officials in the seven agencies stated that the Taser
is to be aimed at the center of an individual’s largest amount of body mass,
which is oftentimes the chest or, in some circumstances, the back. Shots to
the neck or face are not advisable unless a significant danger exists to the
officer or others, and this area is the only target area presented. All seven
agencies we contacted required the officer involved in a use-of-force
incident to complete an official form detailing the type of force used. As
shown in table 3, three of the agencies required the officer to complete a
specific form whenever a Taser was used. These forms included a
description of barb placement, the effects achieved, and the subject’s
behavior before and after the Taser deployment. Following the use of the
Taser, all seven agencies required that the subject be restrained, with
handcuffs or an emergency restraint belt, to ensure that there would be no
further threat of physical aggression.
Page 13
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Table 3: Operational Protocols in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Special incident
report for Tasers?
Post-Taser
restraint?
Visual and battery Test fire at the
tests
beginning of officer’s
shift
No
Yes
Visual and battery Weekly test fire
tests
Yes
Yes
Orange County Sheriff Patrol officers (56% of the
department)
Visual and battery None
tests
No
Yes
Phoenix Police
Patrol officers (50% of the
department)
Visual and battery Test fire at the
tests
beginning of officer’s
shift
No
Yes
Sacramento Police
Patrol officers (57% of the
department)
Visual and battery None
tests
Yes
Yes
Sacramento Sheriff
Full (all officers)
Visual and battery None
tests
No
Yes
San Jose Police
Full (all officers)
Visual and battery None
tests
Yes
Yes
Agency
Deployment
Daily inspection
Austin Police
Patrol officers and
members of some
specialized units
(e.g., narcotics)
Ohio Highway Patrol
Full (all officers)
Special inspection
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.
Safety Procedures
Officials we interviewed in all seven law enforcement agencies stated that
they developed procedures and guidelines to help ensure the safe use of
Tasers. The officials told us that they make every effort to use the Taser as
safely as possible but cautioned that it can still be dangerous.13 As an
official from the Ohio Highway Patrol stated, any time a Taser is used,
“…the officer runs the risk of injuring the intended target. A Taser is by nature a weapon and
carries with it inherent dangers.”
13
For example, of the seven agencies we contacted, two—the Orange County Sheriff’s
Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department—reported post-Taser use
deaths. From 2001 to 2004, Orange County reported that, of the 1,655 individuals on which
Tasers were used, four later died. However, toxicology tests conducted by the county
coroner revealed that all four subjects had lethal levels of drugs in their systems. Similarly,
although Sacramento reported a post-Taser use death, the deceased was later found to have
died of a cocaine overdose.
Page 14
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
As shown in table 4, the seven agencies’ safety guidelines provide that the
Taser should not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near
bystanders or flammable liquids. All the agencies we contacted require an
emergency room physician to examine the subject in the event of Taser
barb placement in the face or neck. The Orange County Sheriff’s
Department also requires any female subject shot in the breast or groin
area to be seen by an emergency room doctor. Six of the seven agencies
provide officers with the discretion to remove the barbs themselves or to
request that emergency medical technicians (EMT) respond to the scene.
Once removed, the barbs should be placed in a “Sharps” container to
ensure safe and hygienic disposal.14 For these agencies, if the officer
observes an adverse reaction to the electrical shock, he or she can request
that the subject be transported to a local hospital emergency room. No
other medical follow-up is required. The remaining agency—the San Jose
Police Department—does not provide its officers with the discretion to
remove Taser barbs. The San Jose Police Department calls for officers to
transport subjects hit with Taser barbs to a hospital so that medical
personnel can remove the barbs. Also, San Jose officers do not routinely
call EMTs to the scene of Taser use. They do so only if other life threatening
needs or medical treatment is needed. If such treatment is not needed, the
officer transports the suspect to a hospital for medical clearance prior to
being booked in the county jail.
14
Sharps containers are used for the disposal of needles, syringes, or other sharp objects to
guard against exposure to bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and hepatitis.
Page 15
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Table 4: Safety Procedures in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies
Agency
Barb removal by officer,
Avoid using Tasers on EMT, or hospital medical
or near:a
personnel?
Emergency room visit required?
Austin Police
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
Ohio Highway Patrol
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
Orange County Sheriff
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck; also breast and
groin (female only)
Phoenix Police
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
Sacramento Police
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
Sacramento Sheriff
• Children,
Officer’s discretion
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
San Jose Police
• Children,
Hospital medical personnel
• pregnant suspects,
bystanders, and
• flammable substances
Impact on face and neck
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.
a
Use of the Taser in these situations is strongly discouraged but in certain exigent circumstances, an
officer may use a Taser to prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury.
Page 16
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Some Federal, State,
and Local Laws
Address Tasers But
Requirements Differ
In reviewing various laws, including statutes, regulations, and ordinances,
we found that Tasers were addressed in some federal, state, and local
jurisdictions. We also found that these jurisdictions had different
requirements for regulating Tasers. In some instances, the extent to which
Tasers are regulated in these jurisdictions may depend on whether the
Taser is classified as a firearm. For example, at the federal level, ATF has
not classified Taser as a firearm, which exempts Taser from federal
firearms requirements. However, we identified other federal agencies, such
as the Army, that have established Taser-related regulations for the
possession, use, and sale of Tasers. In addition, TSA has identified the
Taser as a prohibited weapon that cannot be brought past airport security
checkpoints by unauthorized personnel.15 TSA also has authority to
approve the use of Tasers by flight crews on commercial aircraft. We also
found that the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago, Illinois regulate the
sale or possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons by requiring
that the same restrictions that apply to firearms must also apply to Tasers.
Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into
public facilities such as schools and airports.
15
In our review of federal, state, and local laws, we found that typically, law enforcement
personnel are exempt from requirements that prohibit or restrict the use of Tasers. Thus,
under these laws, requirements related to Tasers generally apply to non-law enforcement
persons who seek to possess, use, purchase, or sell these devices.
Page 17
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
At the federal level, we found that ATF—the federal agency responsible for
determining whether a weapon should be classified as a firearm, which
would make the weapon subject to federal firearms regulations—does not
classify the Taser as a firearm.16 Thus, the Taser is not subject to any federal
regulations regarding the distribution, sale, and possession of firearms. As
a result, Tasers can be manufactured and distributed domestically without
federal restriction.17 However, we identified some federal agencies that
have established regulations that specifically prohibit the sale, possession,
and transfer of Tasers. For example, Army regulations prohibit the sale,
possession, carrying, or transportation of Tasers on or within specific
installations in Georgia, including Fort Gordon and Fort Stewart, which
also includes the Hunter Army Airfield.18 In addition, TSA has a regulation
that prohibits unauthorized individuals from carrying weapons, explosives,
and incendiaries beyond airport security checkpoints.19 To help provide
guidance in implementing its regulation, TSA has developed a chart
outlining specific items that are prohibited in carry-on baggage and has
identified Tasers as a prohibited weapon. TSA also has broad authority
under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as amended by Section
1405 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to approve the use of less-thanlethal weapons by flight deck crew members, as long as the TSA Secretary
prescribes “…rules requiring that any such crew member be trained in the
proper use of the weapon…” and “…guidelines setting forth the
16
In general, a device is classified as a firearm when it “expel[s] a projectile by the action of
an explosive.” 18 U.S.C.§ 921 (a)(3)(A). Because the original Taser used gunpowder to fire
electrical barbs, the ATF in 1976 ruled that Taser was a firearm, “ [s]ince the projectiles are
expelled by the action of an explosive...” ATF Rul. 76-6. However, in 1994, ATF examined a
different model Taser—Taser Model 34000—and determined it not to be a firearm “...based
on the fact that the device...does not expel a projectile by the action of an explosive...” Also,
neither the M-26 nor the X-26 Model Taser is classified as a firearm because they do not
expel projectiles by means of an explosive. Instead of gunpowder, they use a combination of
a battery and nitrogen cartridges to fire the barbs.
17
The United States regulates Taser export sales. Licenses must be obtained for all export
shipments (excluding those to Canada) from the United States Department of Commerce.
15 C.F.R. pt. 774, Supp. 1 (2004).
18
32 C.F.R. §§ 552.127 and 552.101 (2003).
19
49 C.F.R. § 1540.111 (2004). Some individuals, such as police officers, U.S. marshals, and
federal agents may be authorized to carry weapons, explosives, and incendiaries beyond
airport security checkpoints when they are performing law enforcement duties. For
example, a U.S. marshal may carry a weapon when transporting a prisoner by air.
Page 18
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
circumstances under which such weapons may be used.”20 Based on this
authority, in October 2004, TSA approved a request from Korean Airlines
that specially trained cabin attendants be permitted to use Tasers on
commercial flights in U.S. airspace. TSA officials told us they anticipate
that in the future, other airlines will also submit requests to deploy lessthan-lethal weapons.
In reviewing various state and local laws, we identified some state statutes
and municipal ordinances that specifically regulate the sale or possession
of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons within their state or municipal
boundaries. For example, in the state of Indiana, Tasers are subject to the
same licensing requirements as other handguns.21 Therefore, in order to
lawfully possess a Taser in Indiana, prospective purchasers are required to
meet certain license requirements and consent to a criminal history
background check.22 In addition, dealers in Indiana cannot sell a Taser until
after requesting and receiving criminal history information on prospective
purchasers.23 Similarly, in Chicago, Illinois, prospective purchasers are
required to obtain a permit to lawfully purchase Tasers.24 Also, in the state
of Pennsylvania and the city of Wilmington, Delaware, it is unlawful for
non-law enforcement persons to manufacture, make, sell, or possess a
Taser.25 In addition, individuals in various states, including California,
Illinois, and Virginia, are prohibited from carrying Tasers in such areas as
airports, courthouses, schools, prisons, or public buildings.26
20
See 49 U.S.C. § 44903(i) (2001). In 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
directed the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) within the Department of Justice to assess
the range of less-than-lethal weaponry available for use by flight deck crew members to
incapacitate an individual who represents a clear and present danger to the safety of the
aircraft, its passengers, or individuals on the ground and to make this report available to
TSA for review. NIJ conducted its review and determined that stun devices, specifically
Tasers, were the most viable less-than-lethal option for aviation security. As part of its
review, NIJ stated that any weapon chosen should be in current use by law enforcement
agencies to ensure that it has been tested and proven.
21
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-8-4 (Michie 2004).
22
Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-7-2-1 and 35-7-2.5-3 (Michie 2004).
23
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-2.5-4 (Michie 2004).
24
Chicago, Il. Municipal Code, § 4-144-010 (2005).
25
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 908(a) (2004); Wilmington, De. City Code, § 36-161 (2004).
26
Cal. Penal Code §§ 171.5 and 171b; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/31A-1.2 (2004); and Va. Code
Ann. §§ 18.2-287.01 and 18.2.308-1 (2004).
Page 19
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Concluding
Observations
The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established
policies and procedures to attempt to ensure proper use of Tasers.
Specifically, the agencies employ use-of-force policies, training
requirements, operational protocols, and safety procedures, although
specific practices vary from agency to agency. For example, the seven
agencies place the threshold at which Taser use may be deemed
appropriate at three different levels on their use-of-force continuums.
However, even when these policies are strictly enforced, each situation in
which a Taser may be used is unique. An officer must rely on prior
experience and training and exercise good judgment to determine whether
using the Taser constitutes an appropriate level of force. Consequently,
officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted stressed that
proper training is essential for successful deployment. If Taser use
becomes more widespread, particularly among non-law enforcement
personnel who have little or no firearms experience, we believe that this
training will become even more critical for safe, effective, and appropriate
use of the weapon.
Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation
We received written comments on a draft of this report from TSA, which
are included in appendix II. In its comments, TSA stated that it generally
concurred with the information in the report. Also, TSA stated that it
agreed that training and oversight are essential for the use of Tasers. In
addition, TSA discussed its authority to approve the use of less-than-lethal
weapons by air carriers. Among other things, TSA explained that under the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as amended by Sec. 1405 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, air carriers are to contact TSA to request
permission to carry less-than-lethal weapons aboard their aircraft. TSA
would review the air carrier’s request as well as the training program that
the air carrier would provide for the proposed use of the weapon. After
TSA approves the air carrier’s request, an amendment to the air carrier’s
security program must be made to allow for the weapon’s use while the
aircraft is in flight. Requirements could also be mandated for storage of the
weapon while the aircraft is standing at an airport. Furthermore, TSA
stated that it has received a number of requests from air carriers as they
attempt to enhance aircraft security and will continue to evaluate such
requests and review training programs provided by air carriers. In addition,
TSA and FLETC provided technical comments that we incorporated into
this report where appropriate.
Page 20
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
We also received comments from Taser International and the seven law
enforcement agencies we contacted. They generally agreed with the
information in the report. In addition, Taser International and three of the
seven law enforcement agencies—the Austin, Texas, Police Department;
the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; and the San Jose, California,
Police Department—provided some technical comments that we
incorporated into this report where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this report
earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days after its issuance date. At that
time, we will send it to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House
Committee on Government Reform. We will also send it to the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform.
We will also provide copies to the Secretary of the Transportation Security
Administration and will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7455 or at cramerr@gao.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Cramer
Managing Director, Office of
Special Investigations
Page 21
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
AA
ppp
ep
ned
nx
idx
eIis
For this report, our first objective was to obtain information on the policies
and procedures related to the issues of use of force, training, operations,
and safety for selected law enforcement agencies that have purchased and
used Tasers. We conducted this work for the purpose of providing
information about the policies, procedures, and practices these agencies
use to help ensure safe and successful deployment of the Taser. We did not
attempt to draw conclusions about whether Tasers are in fact safe. Our
second objective was to obtain information on federal, state, and local laws
that specifically address Tasers, including the Transportation Security
Administration’s (TSA) authority to regulate Tasers on aircraft.
To address the first objective, we used Taser International Incorporated’s
(Taser International) customer database to identify all U.S. law
enforcement agencies that had purchased Tasers. As the sole manufacturer
of Tasers, Taser International maintained the only centralized database
from which we could obtain this information. Around the time we began
our work in May 2004, Taser International reported that a total of over
7,000 law enforcement agencies had purchased Tasers. Time constraints
would not permit us to contact all these agencies. Thus, we determined that
the most reasonable approach for selecting law enforcement agencies to
contact would be to focus on those agencies that had the largest number of
Tasers for the longest period of time. To do this, we identified two key data
elements for each agency—the date that the agency made its first Taser
purchase and the total number of Tasers that the agency purchased. In
identifying the initial Taser purchase date, we were able to determine how
long ago various agencies had begun buying Tasers. We focused on this
date because we determined that by the time we began our work, the
agencies that had made the earliest Taser purchases would have been more
likely to have established policies and procedures to help ensure the safe
and appropriate use of Tasers.
In addition to the initial purchase date, we identified for each agency the
total number of Tasers that they had purchased. We determined that those
agencies that purchased a significant number of Tasers would have been
more likely to deploy them widely, which increased the chances that more
law enforcement personnel would have used Tasers in training and field
situations. As such, we reasoned that to help ensure that Tasers would be
safely and appropriately used, law enforcement agencies would take steps
as quickly as possible to establish Taser-related policies and procedures.
Using these two data elements, we identified seven law enforcement
agencies that had deployed the largest number of Tasers for the longest
Page 22
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
period of time. These agencies were the Austin, Texas, Police Department;
the Ohio Highway Patrol; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department;
the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; the Sacramento, California,
Police Department; the Sacramento, California, Sheriff’s Department; and
the San Jose, California, Police Department. Our efforts in selecting the
seven agencies constituted a case-study approach. Because we conducted
case studies rather than a statistical survey, the results of our work can be
applied only to the seven agencies we contacted; our work results cannot
be applied to all law enforcement agencies that, according to Taser
International’s data, have purchased Tasers.
With the assistance of GAO methodologists, we drafted a series of
questions related to use-of-force policies, training requirements,
operational protocols, and safety procedures. We asked officials in all
seven agencies the same questions to ensure that we could compare their
responses.
To address the second objective, we researched various federal and state
laws, including statutes and regulations, to determine whether Tasers are
regulated at the federal and state levels. In addition, we reviewed
information obtained from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on local ordinances that regulate
Tasers. Also, we researched various published local ordinances to
determine whether Tasers are regulated at the local level. In addition, we
reviewed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to ascertain federal
requirements for approving the use of Tasers onboard aircraft.
We conducted our work from May 2004 through February 2005 in
accordance with quality standards for investigations as set forth by the
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Page 23
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Appendix II
Comments from the Secretary, Transportation
Security Administration
Page 24
Appendx
iI
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
Appendix III
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Appendx
Ii
GAO Contact
Robert J. Cramer, (202) 512-7455
Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Jennifer Costello, Richard Egan,
Joseph Funk, Barbara Lewis, Latesha Love, John Ryan, and Barry Shillito
made key contributions to this report.
(601268)
Page 25
GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders
should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Contact:
Congressional
Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00